The AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch report continues to come under fire for cherry-picking their data. Both the Washington Examiner and Washington Post’s Fact Checker have chimed in, with the Washington Post calling claims that the average CEO makes 300 times the average worker “completely wrong.”

When using the Department of Labor’s figures, which include a more accurate salary accounting of 28 million small businesses nationwide, rather than just the S&P 500 CEOs, the CEO-to-worker pay gap comes nowhere near the 347-to-1 figure the AFL-CIO claims.

Read the most recent Washington Examiner article here.

In mid-April 2016, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Communications Workers of America conducted a strike against Verizon after they failed to negotiate a contract for workers. With apologies to her coworkers, one union employee in Lowell, Massachusetts decided to cross the line and continue working, earning additional compensation for doing so. After the strike, the union held a trial on the employee, fining her more than $24,000 for her perceived transgressions. They have since taken her to court to get her to pay.

Read more about the ongoing story here.

Union CEO’s make almost $60,000 more annually than private sector CEOs, according to a new report released by The Center for Union Facts. Leading union officials earned $252,370 in 2016 compared to the average CEO take-home pay of $194,350. The Center for Union Facts compiled the information from filings of 192 of the largest national, state, and local unions in response to the AFL-CIOs annual Executive Paywatch report. The Executive Paywatch report claims “a CEO-to-worker pay ratio of 347 to 1” though the methodology of the union report has come under fire for using only the most lucrative companies and including part-time workers in their calculations. One AFL-CIO member union, the Airline Pilots Association, pays their President the highest compensation at $775,829 a year with a base salary of $526,292.

Read more about it here

Two new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) potential nominees have begun the FBI background-check process, a last step before President Trump makes his official recommendation. At this time, it looks as if William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan may have ousted Doug Seaton for the two vacant seats on the NLRB board. Speculation is that Seaton’s “union-buster” reputation may have disqualified him in the end.

Emanuel and Kaplan bring extensive but different backgrounds to the board. Emanuel is currently a lawyer at Littler Mendelson in Los Angeles. He has authored many briefs for trade associations and manufacturing companies, including a filing that defends “common and valuable” class-action waivers. The Obama administration NLRB found these waivers illegal. The case is now in the Supreme Court.

Kaplan serves as a counsel at the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Previous to that, he spent five years as a Republican counsel for the House Education and Workforce Committee. In 2015, he helped draft the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, which denied NLRB jurisdiction on reservations and investigated fraud and abuse within the NLRB and DOL.

If both nominees take their seats on the board, the focus of the NLRB will move from union-oriented to management-oriented, as is typically the case under a Republican president.

Read more about the expected nominations here.

Since the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) enacted its new rules in April 2015, union elections have been organized 38 percent faster than in previous years, according to a study conducted by the management law firm Fisher Phillips. On average, workers wait 24 days for an election compared to 39 days in previous years. Union elections held in less than 2 weeks are also becoming more common, up from 6 elections to 62 in the past year.

Although supporters of the rule say it prevents intimidation of employees, business groups have dubbed it the “ambush” election rule as it does not give managers enough time to speak with their employees.

Read more about this study here.

In 2011, catering company Pier Sixty fired an employee after discovering he had written a publicly accessible, vulgar Facebook post about his boss. The employee wrote the pro-union post following an exchange where he felt his boss had treated him unfairly, and only a few days before a unionization vote.

The terminated employee filed a charge with the NLRB, citing “retaliation for engaging in protected concerted activities.” The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in his favor in 2013, and a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) three-member panel agreed in 2015 after Pier Sixty filed exceptions. The Second Circuit Court affirmed the NLRB’s decision on April 21, 2017.

Although the court found the post “vulgar and inappropriate,” it determined three points protected the employee: One, the subject matter concerned workplace concerns; two, Pier Sixty tolerated vulgarity in its employees prior to this incident; and three, the online nature of communication was among coworkers, but not in the immediate presence of coworkers.

Read more about the Pier Sixty case here.